HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT
- This complaint is filed by the complainants under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging gross deficiency and negligence of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainants have filed this case praying for the following reliefs :-
“..... that the Learned Commission would be graciously pleased to pass an order for not to sale any flat / accommodation to any person by the Opposite Party/s till completely not provide the Owners’ Allocations to the complainants by the Opposite parties an order / orders as your Honour may deem fit and proper for ends of justice.”
- Heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the complainants on the point of admission.
- We have carefully perused the petition of complaint wherefrom it appears to us that the complainants and the opposite parties entered into a development agreement on 25.09.2016 for developing the property of the complainants as mentioned in the schedule to the petition of complaint.
- As per the development agreement it was agreed that the opposite parties shall start the construction works preferably within six months from the date of execution of the development agreement and shall complete the said proposed building within two years from the date of commencement of the said construction works. It was further agreed between the parties that further six months’ time may be extended under unavoidable circumstances.
- It appears from the petition of complaint that the cause of action initially arose on 25.09.2016 when development agreement was executed by and between the parties. This complaint is filed on 28.03.2023 which reveals that after about six years from the date of execution of the deed of conveyance in respect of the flat, the complaints have filed this complaint before this Commission which is not legally permitted in view of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 runs as follows :-
“(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission, or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”
- From the aforesaid provision it appears to us that the provision is peremptory in nature, requiring the Consumer Commission to examine before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two months from the date of accrual of the cause of action. The Consumer Commission, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint, if sufficient cause is shown.
- On careful perusal of the record it appears to us that this complaint has not been filed in time. There is a delay in filing the petition of complaint by the complainants. Moreover, it appears to us that this complaint is not accompanied with a separate petition praying for condonation of delay.
- At the time of hearing on the point of admission Learned Advocate appearing for the complainants has submitted that a discussion was held in between the complainants and the opposite parties regarding the delay of construction of the building on the land of the complainants. Record goes to show that the complainants have not produced any paper to show that there was discussion among the parties with regard to the construction of the building on the land of the complainants.
10. Learned Lawyer appearing for the complainants has further urged that since the opposite parties have failed and neglected to do construction works, as such, complainants served a notice to the opposite parties on 11.12.2022. He further submitted that on receiving the said notice the opposite parties did not respond to such letter. We fail to accept the contentions as made by the Learned Lawyer appearing for the complainants.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors., reported at (2014) 6 SCC 460 has held the following :-
“10. In our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Simply by making a representation, when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided.........”
12. The Hon’ble National Commission in Mahesh Nensi Shah Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported at III (2006) CPJ 414 NC, has observed that :-
“ no amount of correspondence between the parties can extend the period of limitation.”
13. In the present case also, this complaint has been filed after almost more than 6 (six) years from the date, the “cause of action” arose. Even though the complainants had made several representations to the opposite parties when the letters were not responded by the opposite parties, the same cannot be considered as the date of accrual of fresh cause of action.
14. We find that this complaint is not accompanied with a separate petition praying for condonation of delay. On the date of execution of the deed of Development Agreement cause of action arose, then it was the duty of the complainants to approach before the court of law by filing a complaint within the statutory period of limitation i.e. within two years from the date of cause of action. But without doing so, the complainants filed this complaint before this Commission after a long period of more than 6 (six) years from the date of cause of action without filing any separate petition praying for condonation of delay which is totally contrary to the provision of section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, it is ordered that the consumer complaint case being No. CC/36/2023 is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation and without being admitted.
The complaint case is, thus, disposed of accordingly.
